96 Marjut Johansson & Eija Suomela-Salmi
or inter-subjective, the principal markers of which are deontic auxiliaries, voicing the relation between the subjects, i.e. the interlocutors.
Modality can be seen as a subcategory of a wider process, that of modalization which according to Coquet (1976 :64) means the attribution of modalities to an utterance, by which an enunciator expresses an attitude towards his interlocutor and towards the contents of his utterance (cf. also Culioli [1968]1999 :24 : “to modalize is to assign modalities to an utterance […]”). But as Vion (2001: 219–220) points out, definitions of modality do not radically differ from those of modalization and the concept of modalization is used fairly seldom in French linguistics. Vion himself defines modalities as the linguistic markers signalling the subjective attitude of the locutor in discourse whereas modalization, according to Vion, refers to the process of expressing a subjective attitude (ibid:214).
Since the seventies, the concept of modality in the French linguistic literature has been divided into modalities of enunciation (modalités d’énonciation) and utterance modalities (modalités d’énoncé). This division is attributed to Meunier (1974). A more recent definition is Nølke’s (1993), according to which the modalities of enunciation express the way in which the speaker looks at his own enunciative activity (« Ce sont les regards que le locuteur jette sur son activité énonciative »). With the help of the modalities of enunciation the speaker can in fact make commentaries which directly concern illocutionary acts or the act of enunciation in which he is engaged (Nølke 1993 :85). As for utterance modalities they express the way the speaker looks at the contents of his utterance […]. He can in fact evaluate in different ways the argumentative and truth values of his utterance (ibid :143).
3.6 Modalities of enunciation (modalités d’énonciation)
Modalities of enunciation in their traditional sense correspond to the Aristotelean division of modalities – they deal with the relation the speaker wants to establish between himself and his interlocutor/s and the way in which he wants to act upon them. Meunier’s classification includes the assertive, interrogative, injunctive and exclamative modalities. Following Nølke (1993) one should also include what he calls modalisateurs d’énonciation, a heterogenous class of illocutionary markers which give instructions as to how to interpret an utterance, such as illocutionary adverbs (finally – a metatextual marker; if I may say, unless I am mistaken – commenting on the enunciative activity; or no joking (sans rire) excluding the possibility of humorous or ironic interpretations (Nølke 1993 :114–115).
3.7 Utterance modalities (modalités d’énoncé)
Utterance modalities express the attitude of the speaking subject (modus) towards the contents of his utterance (dictum). Bally adopted this distinction between modus
Énonciation 97
and dictum from the medieval philosophical tradition (cf. supra). Depending on the point of view adopted, utterance modalities can include logical modalities, appreciative modalities (Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1980) and subjective vs. objective modalities (Le Querler 1996). The typologies resemble each other to a certain extent and are partly overlapping. Still other categories have been suggested (cf. Vion 2001), but in the following we shall discuss very briefly logical modalities and in more detail the appreciative and subjective vs. objective modalities.
The classical logical modalities can be divided into (1) alehtic modalities which deal with necessity, possibility and contingency, the latter designating a state of affairs that is not necessarily true but not necessarily false either, a limited case of possibility ;
(2) deontic modalities which are related to either moral or social norms and express permission and obligation ; and (3) epistemic modalities related to knowledge and beliefs, dealing with the certainty of propositions (Cervoni 1987: 74–77).
The appreciative modalities (Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1980) express the subjective evaluations and judgements of the speaker. According to Cervoni (1987:177–178), there is no reason why evaluative modalities, of which the appreciative modalities are a subcategory, should not be included in the category of modal expressions since they too refer to a certain norm, social or individual. Appreciative modalities are expressed via axiological expressions which, according to Kerbrat-Orecchioni (1980 : 82), are in an implicit relation with the speaker. This means that unlike other subjective elements, such as modal verbs and deictic expressions, axiological expressions allow the speaker to take a stance without explicitly revealing himself as the source of the judgement expressed (ibid). Appreciative modalities can be expressed via nouns, adjectives, adverbs and verbs.
Nouns expressing the appreciation of the speaker can be pejoratively or melioratively marked (Pierre is an idiot, He is a genius), be negatively marked by virtue of suffixes (-asse, -ard in French- flemmard, blondasse) or be nouns derived from inherently subjective verbs and adjectives (corruption, beauty). Furthermore, nouns may be marked because of the register they belong to (flic, cop vs. police).
As for adjectives, they are first divided into objective and subjective adjectives, secondly the subjective ones into affective (splendid, funny) and evaluative adjectives, which in turn can be further subdivided into non-axiologic adjectives, which express neither evaluation nor personal engagement of the speaker (expensive, big, hot) and axiologic adjectives (beautiful, good) which express either positive or negative evaluations of the speaker (Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1980 :85–86).
Verbs expressing the appreciation of the speaker must, according to KerbratOrecchioni (1980 : 101), be considered from three different points of view :
1.Who expresses the evaluation: the speaker (Helene is screaming, Pierre pretends that Paul never came) or an actor of the process (Paul wishes that…).
98Marjut Johansson & Eija Suomela-Salmi
2.What is evaluated: the process (to brawl) or the object of the process (Pierre hates
Paul)
3.The type of evaluation: axiologic evaluation as in good/bad or modal evaluation such as true/false (uncertain).
Furthermore, some verbs are occasionally subjective, when used in the first person singular (I hope, I regret), whereas others are inherently subjective, expressing an evaluation made by the speaker (He stinks, he admits …).
Le Querler’s typology (1996) consists of a continuum ranging from subjective via inter-subjective to objective modalities. Her subjective modalities express the speaker’s attitude to the propositional content of his utterance. They include epistemic modalities (cf. logical modalities supra) and appreciative modalities. In the case of epistemic modalities, the locutor expresses the degree of certitude towards what he is saying (I do not know if that is true, That is certainly, probably, maybe true, He might be in his sixties …) In case of appreciative modalities, the locutor expresses his evaluation or judgement (Unfortunately, it is not at all clear, I do appreciate your presence here today …) When resorting to inter-subjective modalities the speaker indicates directly or indirectly, the illocutory force of his utterance. The inter-subjective modalities correspond to deontic modalities and have to do with order, permission, request, advice..). (I would like you to close the window, you can close the window, close the window…). Objective modalities (called also implicative modalities) do not, according to Le Querler, depend on the volition or the judgement of the speaker. The speaker subordinates the propositional content of the utterance to another proposition (Le Querler 1996: 64). The speaking subject only asserts that p implies q (In order to grow, one must eat, The door has either to be closed or to be left open).
Especially the subcategory of objective modalities has met criticism. It is difficult to accept the idea that the relationship between propositions would be independent of the speaking subject (Vion 2001: 218). Vion also points out that the propositional content of an utterance does not reflect any objective reality or state of affairs since the dictum is always a result of subjective choices made by the speaker (Vion 2001: 220). Consequently, modus as well as dictum should be taken into account when analyzing modality. This leads Vion to propose the term double enunciation (double énonciation) which implies that modalization should be seen as a phenomenon taking place at two different levels, that of content and that of modal attitude, or as Vion expresses it: “the speaker stages his utterance from two enunciatively different positions” (ibid).
Note: Eija Suomela-Salmi is responsible for the Sections 2.2.1, 2.2.2., 2.3.1, 2.3.4 and 3.5. Marjut Johansson is responsible for the rest.
Énonciation 99
References
Adam, J.-M., G. Lugrin & F. Revaz (1998). Pour en finir avec le couple récit/discours. Pratiques 100: 81–98.
Anscombre, J.-C. & O. Ducrot (1983). L’argumentation dans la langue. Pierre Mardaga. Arnauld, A. & C. Lancelot [1660] (1998). Grammaire générale et raisonnée. Allia.
Authier-Revuz, J. 1982. Hétérogénéité montrée et hétérogénéité constitutive: éléments pour une approche de l’autre dans le discours. DRLAV, Revue de linguistique 26: 91–151.
———(1984). Hétérogénéités énonciatives. Langages 73: 98–111.
———(1992). Repères dans le champs du discours rapporté. Information grammaticale 55: 38–42.
———(1995a). Ces mots qui ne vont pas de soi. Boucles réflexives et non-coïncidences du dire. Tomes I–II. Larousse.
———(1995b). Méta-énonciation et (dé)figement. Cahiers du français contemporai 2: 17–39.
———(1996). Remarques sur la catégorie de l’îlot textuel. Cahiers du français contemporain 3: 91–115. Bakhtine, M. [1929] (1977). Le marxisme et la philosophie du langage. Essai d’application de la méthode sociologique en linguistique. Traduit par M. Yaguello. Publié sous le nom de V. Voloshinov.
Editions du Minuit.
Bally, C. (1909). Traité de stylistique française. Vol 1. et 2. Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung.
———[1913] (1952). Le langage et la vie. Attar.
———[1932] (1944). Linguistique générale et linguistique française. Francke.
Banks, D. (2004). Anglophone systemicists and French enunciativists: shall the twain ever meet?
Language sciences 26: 391–410.
Benveniste, E. (1966). Problèmes de linguistique générale I. Gallimard.
——— (1974). Problèmes de linguistique générale II. Gallimard.
Bréal, M. (1991). The beginnings of Semantics. Edited and translated by G. Wolf. Duckworth. Brunet, E. (2004). Continuité ou discontinuité en histoire des sciences du langage? La place du sujet
parlant depuis Saussure. Actes des VIIe RJ EDC268 Langage et Langues: 25–29.
Brunot, F. (1922). La pensée et le langage. Methode, principe et plan d’une théorie nouvelle du langage appliquée au français. Masson et Cie.
Cervoni, J. (1987). L’ énonciation. Presses universitaires de France.
Charaudeau, P. (2002). Situation de communication. In P. Charaudeau et D. Maingueneau (eds.),
Dictionnaire d’analyse du discours: 532–536.
Chiss, J.-L. (1985). La stylistique de Charles Bally. De la notion de « sujet parlant » à la théorie de l’énonciation. Langages 77: 85–94.
——— (1986). Charles Bally: Qu’est-ce qu’une ‘Théorie de l’énonciation’? In: Histoire, Epistémologie, Langue. Tome 8 – fascicule II: 165–176.
Chiss, J.-L. & C. Puech (1997). Fondations de la linguistique. Etudes d’histoire et épistémologie. 2ème
édition. Duculot.
Coquet, J.-C. (1976). Les modalités du discours. Langages 43: 64–70.
Culioli, A. (1990). Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation. Formalisation et opérations de repérage.
Tome 1. Orphys.
———(1999). Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation. Formalisation et opérations de repérage. Tome
2.Orphys.
———(2002). Variations sur la linguistique. Entretiens avec F. Fau et notes de M. Viel. Klincksieck. Danon-Boileau, L. (1994). La personne comme indice de modalité. Faits de langues 3: 159–168.
100Marjut Johansson & Eija Suomela-Salmi
Desmet, P. & P. Swiggers (eds.) (1995). De la grammaire comparée à la sémantique. Textes de Michel Bréal publiés entre 1964–1898. Introduction, commentaires et bibliographie par P. Desmet et P. Swiggers. Peeters.
Dubois, J. (1969). Enoncé et énonciation. Langages 13: 100–110.
Ducard, D. (2006). Seuils, passages, sauts. In D. Ducard & C. Normand (dir), Antoine Culioli. Un homme dans la langue. Colloque de Cerisy : 13–18. Orphys.
Ducrot, O. (1968). Le structuralisme en linguistique. Seuil.
———(1972). Dire et ne pas dire. Principes de sémantique linguistique. Hermann.
———(1980a). Les Mots du discours. Minuit.
———(1980b). Les échelles argumentatives. Editions de Minuit.
———(1984). Le dire et le dit. Editions de Minuit.
———[1986] (1991). Charles Bally and pragmatics. Translated by C. Porter, K. Rabbit & L. Waugh.
Diacritics 21:4 3–19.
———(2004). Argumentation rhétorique et argumentation linguistique. In M. Doury & S. Moirand (eds.), L’argumentation aujourd’hui. Positions théoriques en confrontation. Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle.
———(s.a.) Enonciation. Encyclopédie Universalis. www.universalis.fr.
Ducrot, O. & J.-M. Schaeffer (eds.) (1995). Nouveau dictionnaire encyclopédique des sciences du langage. Seuil.
Durrer, S. (1998). Introduction à la linguistique de Charles Bally. Delacaux et Niestlé.
Fontaine, J. (1986). L’énonciation de Benveniste à Weinrich. Histoire, Epistémologie, Langage. Tome 8 – fascicule II: 207–220.
Foucault, M. (1969). L’archéologie du savoir. Gallimard.
Fuchs, C. (1981). Les problématiques énonciatives: Esquisses d’une présentation historique et critique DRLAV, Revue linguistique (Dans le champ pragmatico-énonciatif) 25: 35–60.
Groupe Relpred (Bernard, G. & al.) (1989). Enonciation. In Encyclopédie Philosophique Universelle. Vol. Notions, tome 1. Presses universitaires de France.
Groussier, M.-L. (2000). On Antoine Culioli’s theory of enunciative operations. Lingua 110(3): 157–187.
Gouvard, J.-M. (2005). Linguistique, stylistique et style chez Charles Bally. In J.-M. Gouvard (ed.), De la langue au style : 5–20. Presses universitaires de Lille.
Guillaume, G. (1912). Etudes de grammaire française logique comparée. Le lieu du mode dans le temps, dans l’espace. Fascicule 1: L’article. Fichbacher.
———(1919). Le problème de l’article et sa solution dans la langue française. Hachette. Jakobson, R. [1957] (1963). Shifters, Verbal Categories, and the Russian Verb. In Essais de linguistique
générale. Les Editions de Minuit.
Johansson, M. (2000). Recontextualisation du discours d’autrui. Discours représenté dans l’interview politique médiatique. University of Turku.
Joly, A. (1987). Essais de systématique énonciative. Presses universitaires de Lille.
Joly, A. & D. Roulland (1981). Pour une approche psychomécanique de l’énonciation. In A. Joly & W.H. Hirtle (eds.), Langage et psychomécanique du langage. Etudes dédiées à Roch Valin: 537–581. Presses de l’université de Laval.
Le Querler, N. (1996). Typologie des modalités. Presses Universitaires de Caen. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1980). L’ énonciation. De la subjectivité dans le langage. Armand Colin.
———(2006). L’énonciation. De la subjectivité dans le langage. Forth edition. Armand Colin. Kleiber, G. (1986). Déictiques, embrayeurs, token-reflexives, symboles indexicaux etc.: comment les
définir ? L’information grammaticale 30: 42–44.
Énonciation 101
Lala, M.-C. (2006). Points de vue croisés à la source d’une théorie de l’énonciation. Chiss, Jean-Louis (ed.) Charles Bally (1965–1947) Historicité des débats linguisitiques et didactiques. Stylistique, énonciation, crise du français: 94–120. Peeters Publishing.
Liddle, M. (ed) (1995). Antoine Culioli. Cognition and representation in liguistic theory. John Benjamins. Maingeneau, D. (1994). L’énonciation en linguistique française. Hachette.
——— (1997). L’analyse du discours. Hachette.
Marnette, S. (2005). Speech and Thought Presentation in French. John Benjamins. Meunier, A. (1974). Modalités et communication. Langue française 21: 8–25.
Moeschler J. (2006). The French tradition in pragmatics: From structuralism to cognitivism. Intercultural pragmatics 3(4): 381–307.
Morel, M.-A. & L. Danon-Boileau (dir.) (1992). La deixis. Presses universitaires de France. Nerlich, B. & D.D. Clark (1996). Language, action and context. John Benjamins. Normand, C. (1985a). Le sujet dans la langue. Langages 77: 7–19.
———(1985b). Le « sujet » est de retour. Langages 77: 5.
———(1986). Les termes de l’énonciation de Benveniste. In Histoire, Epistémologie, Langage. Tome 8 – fascicule II : 191–206.
———(2005). Culioli, Antoine. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics: 307. Elsevier.
Nølke, H. (1993). Le regard sur le locuteur. Pour une linguistique des traces énonciatives. Volume 1. Kimé.
Rosier, L. (1999). Le discours rapporté. Histoire, théories, pratiques. Duculot.
Valette, M. (2003). Enonciation et cognition: deux termes in absentia pour des notions omniprésents dans l’œuvre de Guillaume. Le français moderne – Tome LXXXI no 1: 6–25.
———(2004). Actualisation et énonciation. Retour sur une géméllité problématique. In G. Hassler & G. Volkmann (eds.), History of linguistics in texts and concepts: 813–821. Nodus Publikationen.
———(2006). Linguistiques énonciatives et cognitives françaises. Gustave Guillaume, Bernard Pottier, Maurice Toussaint, Antoine Culioli. Honoré Champion.
Waugh, L. (1995). Reported speech in journalistic discourse: the relation of function and text. Text 15(1): 129–173.
van Hecke, T. (2002). Emilé Benveniste. Handbook of Pragmatics. www.benjamins.com /cgi-bin/ bbr_hop.cgi.
Vincent, D. & S. Dubois (1997). Le discours rapporté au quotidien. Nuit blanche.
Vion, R. (ed). (1998). Les sujets et leurs discours. Enonciation et interaction. Publications de l’Université de Provence.
——— (2001). Modalités, modalisations et actes langagières. Marges linguistiques 2: 209–231. www. revue-texto.net.